Education Commission Of The States Research Articles

Building Sustainable Funding for Teacher Residency Programs

Schools across the U.S. are facing substantial challenges filling positions ( Bleiberg & Kraft, 2022 ) and are considering solutions to address potential teacher shortages. As of 2022, almost half of the States in the U.S. create or support teacher residency programs (TRPs) through statute or regulation ( Education Commission of the States, 2022 ). TRPs are a structured, alternative mode of entry into the education profession that combines coursework in education with extensive on-the-job training, modeled after medical residencies ( Guha et al. 2016 ; Silva et al. 2014 ). To fulfill its promise, TRPs need to be organized and funded to offer living stipends to attract high-quality candidates with diverse backgrounds and experiences while providing them with intensive preparation. In this commentary article, we discuss “4 Rs” of sustainable funding: Reallocation, Reduction, Reinvestment, and Realignment. The literature suggests that most of the needed resources are already in the system, but they need to be realigned and reapplied. This transition can occur through cooperation and collaboration among state policymakers, EPPs, and local school districts.

Dr. Uri Treisman: Five Decades of Postsecondary Innovation

Philip Uri Treisman is a University Distinguished Teaching Professor, professor of mathematics, and professor of public affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. He is the founder and executive director of the Charles A. Dana Center, an organized research unit in the College of Natural Sciences that works to ensure that all students, regardless of their life circumstances, can access—and succeed—in rigorous mathematics and science education. Dr. Treisman is active in numerous organizations working to improve American mathematics education. He is a founder and member of the governing board of Transforming Post-Secondary Education in Mathematics (also known as TPSE-Math). He is a representative of the American Mathematical Society to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Education, Section Q) and is a senior advisor to the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Research Advisory Group. In addition, he is a member of the Roundtable on Data Science Postsecondary Education with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Dr. Treisman has served as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Education Commission of the States since 2013. He is also chairman of the Strong Start to Finish Campaign (and its expert advisory board), a joint initiative of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, and Ascendium Education Group that works nationally to ensure that all students get a strong start in their first year of college and finish with the skills they need to thrive. Treisman has served on the STEM working group of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the 21st-Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges of the American Association of Community Colleges, and the Commission on Mathematics and Science Education of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Institute for Advanced Study. Treisman’s research and professional interests span mathematics and science education, education policy, social and developmental psychology, community service, and volunteerism.

Analysis of Safety Policy Making: Implications for School Psychologists

Despite data indicating that schools are safe, and safer today than they were 20 years ago, it is not uncommon for both the general public and school policymakers to exaggerate safety threats following high-fatality school shootings such as the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Often this leads to reactionary policies not supported by science. This paper reviews current school safety policy making efforts, with special attention directed to a policy analysis conducted by the Education Commission of the States, reviews the literature surrounding school safety approaches, and draws contrasts between the two. Implications for school psychology practice and for school safety advocacy are discussed.

Have you Heard? Newsworthy items from the field

The Education Commission of the States analyzed governors’ 2020 State of the State addresses to determines what their priorities are for education. ACT’s Center for Equity in Learning surveyed students who took the February 2019 ACT exam about their perceptions of current mental health services at their schools. RTI International surveyed principals from 1,226 schools about tip lines where students, families, and community members can report potential school safety concerns. A publication from the National Center of Education Statistics looks at school start times.

Competency‐based education: Recent policy trends

BackgroundThe student population on college campuses continues to evolve, including an influx of adult learners. With the specific needs of this student population, states and institutions must assess the current learning environment and explore alternative pathways to earning a credential, including competency‐based education (CBE). This article provides an overview of recent legislation and policy activity regarding CBE. Institution examples are presented as well as policy considerations for policymakers and institutions to keep top of mind when exploring CBE programs.Materials & MethodsPolicies explored were pulled from a databased housed at Education Commission of the States (ECS). ECS began tracking specific higher education policies in 2014, hence this article covers CBE policies beginning that year. The author reviewed introduced and enacted legislation from 2014 to 2017. The author also reviewed institution examples of CBE programs not set in legislation.Results2014 and 2015 saw four states introduce CBE legislation with two bills ultimately being enacted. In 2016, three states considered CBE bills, one of which was enacted. At least five states considered CBE bills in 2017, ultimately seeing three of those enacted. In addition to legislative activity, many institutions implement CBE on their campuses without policy. The article highlights three including Western Governors University, the University of Wisconsin Flex option, and Davis Technical College. Policy and practice considerations include: Institutions should consider moving away from a credentialing approach to an instructional approach; States need to modernize state financial aid policies to allow students to utilize state funds for CBE programs; Institutions offering CBE should support students and enhance the educational experience by providing coaches or mentors to navigate both academic rigor and administrative tasks; and Coordinate efforts between institutions and industry leaders. ConclusionAs this article highlights, CBE policies in states and at institutions are at various levels of sophistication. Many states are continuing to explore CBE through expert committees, research, and legislative action. With the ever‐increasing number of adult learners coming to campuses, states and institutions need to assess the needs of their student populations and how CBE could benefit all students. A change to the instructional model in postsecondary education can increase completion rates and help states ultimately reach their lofty attainment goals.

Advanced Placement Exams, Incentive Programs, and Cost Effectiveness: A Lack of Equity and Excellence for Black Students in Texas, New York, and Florida

Numerous researchers (e.g., Academic Pathways to Access and Student Success, 2006, ACT, Inc., 2009; Bragg, Kim, & Barnett, , 2006; College Board, 2010; Hargrove, Godin, & Dodd, 2008; Keng & Dodd, 2008; Morgan & Klaric, 2007) have concluded that participating in challenging high school curriculums such as Advanced Placement (AP) courses and exams positively contribute to students' college readiness, college achievement, and career success. Specifically mentioned in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was the AP program as a college prep course (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Moreover, Section 1702 (Access to High Standards Act) of the No Child Left Behind Act acknowledged federal confirmation of AP coursework as college prep curriculum and encouraged states and school districts to incorporate these programs as a means of elevating academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush thrust the AP program into mainstream education; accordingly, the national perception on AP program involvement increased (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009).In a policy brief for the Education Commission of the States (ECS), Dounay (2006) recommended an all-inclusive state policy on advanced placement. First, each state and school district should require a minimum number of AP courses to be offered. As a result, state policy would provide consistency in AP content and leverage AP curriculum offerings in low-income and high minority schools. Second, a state-wide AP framework would establish standards and opportunities for all students to gain access to college preparatory courses. As the result, the federal government, along with most states, and the College Board subsidizes AP exam fees for low-income students. In addition, most states (including Texas, New York, and Florida) provide additional incentives for students and teachers of students who achieve AP exam scores of 3 or higher (Holstead et al., 2010). In September 2006, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced that 33 grants in the amount of $17 million were awarded to increase the participation of low-income students in AP courses and exams. In 2006, an additional $5,867,284 was awarded to 26 states to fund AP exam subsidies programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).In 2012, Arne Duncan, the current Secretary of Education, announced that federal support of AP program incentives and exam subsidies were reinstated (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Over $21.5 million was budgeted to subsidize AP exam fees. As the result of these financial awards, the federal government continued to acknowledge AP course and exam participation as curriculum of college readiness and success. Although funding for AP programs and exams was approved, researchers (e.g., Davis, Joyner, & Slate, 2011; Moore & Slate, 2008) have documented the persistent AP achievement and participation gaps among Black students in the United States. Specific to this study, few researchers (Davis, Joyner, & Slate, 2011; Koch; 2012) have investigated AP program involvement and performance of ethnically diverse, primarily lower socioeconomic, student groups across states.PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThe purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of covering AP exam fees by comparing the success value provided by overall AP exam outcomes to test expenditures for Black students in three researcher-selected states (i.e., Texas, New York, and Florida). According to the Centers for Disease Control (n.d.), cost-effectiveness analysis is commonly used in the health care industries to confirm if the intervention and the results desired validate the cost or investment. As it pertains to this research, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of AP exam to the results or level of success on these exams. In addition, the cost effectiveness analysis evaluates the extent to which AP achievement can be regarded as providing value for the dollars spent (Davis, 2013). …

Thirty-Seven and Counting: How Has AEFP Evolved from Its Origins?

It has been a busy time for the Association of Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). Over the past few years the association has acquired a new name, a new journal, and many new members. The 2012 annual conference, convened in Boston last March, proved to be the largest conference in the association’s thirty-seven-year history, with 556 members in attendance. The theme, selected by incoming president Deborah Cunningham, was “Education Finance, Policy, and Practice: The Role of Evidence in a Dynamic World,” which underscores the contemporary challenge to the association: how to apply an increasing abundance of information and sophisticated analytical tools to produce the evidence needed to guide decision making by educational policy makers and practitioners. The Boston meeting was notable not only for the number in attendance. The unique qualities and strengths of the association were in clear display: papers of unusual methodological rigor; an interdisciplinary mix of academics from the social sciences, public policy schools, and colleges of education; educational finance professionals, policy analysts, and practitioners, a mix rarely found in the same place; and sessions addressing today’s hot topics as well as issues that have endured over the years. Having said this, all indications are that AEFP is what it has always been: a small, diverse group of people tackling some really big problems. Of particular note was a trend that has been growing for years but has clearly come into full flower: the large

Student Safety and the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind

reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is 3 years overdue, and the Obama administration, through Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, has explained the urgency of revising and reauthorizing the law. Attention has been focused most acutely on the provisions that directly relate to academic performance and accountability (Dillon, 2010a, 2010b). Remaining under the radar, however, is the critical Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO), Section 9532 of NCLB. USCO states that students who attend schools or who themselves have been the victims of violent crime at school are eligible to transfer to another public school (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). USCO was the first federal educational legislation to recognize school safety concerns as grounds for school choice. Since its inception, however, USCO has been heartily criticized; its provision related to the identification of persistently dangerous schools has yielded the most discussion. Much of the critique has been prompted by the fact that so few persistently dangerous schools have actually been identified. At the time of its review, the Office of the Inspector General (2007) reported that the designation had been applied less than 200 times and often to the same schools year after year. Since USCO went into effect in the 2003-2004 school year, researchers have identified weaknesses, raised questions, and made suggestions for improvement (Education Commission of the States, 2004 (pp. 49-52); Gastic, 2007; Gastic & Gasiewski, 2008; Gooden & Harrington, 2005; Gooden, Harrington, Findlay, & King, 2008; Khashu & Salsich, 2005; Office of Inspector General, 2007; Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, 2006; Zradicka, 2004). Taken together, this body of work describes how the current system by which states determine their criteria for persistently dangerous schools has contributed to USCO s limited relevance, as states have generated an idiosyncratic patchwork of regulations to measure school safety and risk. While that provision of USCO has been vetted, the shortcomings of the individual transfer option have gone relatively unexamined. In this essay I fill that gap and investigate how the individual transfer option fails to adequately protect the students who are at the greatest risk of being hurt at school. I also present specific recommendations for how the individual transfer option ofUSCO can be revised before NCLB is reauthorized. The first obstacle is that the individual transfer option is currently restricted to students who are victims of violent crime at school. Violent crime is (fortunately) one of the rarest forms of violence at school; it includes simple and aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and sexual assault (Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009). In 2007, 2% of students aged 12-18 reported these kinds of victimization at school. Albeit important, violent crime is a narrow category and therefore limited in its usefulness as a representative indicator of school safety. Use of this criterion effectively impedes a much larger population of students who have been otherwise significantly injured or hurt at school from exercising an option to transfer schools.

Adding Young Children to the Federal Agenda

At first, my reaction to the Obama Administration's focus on early childhood education was ho-hum. Do those upstarts in the White House know how long that's been on the agenda? Or, maybe this administration is serious about change and making government do right. The welfare of very young children was a federal concern through most of the last century in a fragmented way. The old Children's Bureau focused on child labor laws and health issues, but it wasn't until the Nixon Administration that specific proposals came forth to add early childhood education to the nation's priorities. Attention to early childhood education flared again when the first President Bush and the nation's governors convened the National Education Summit at the end of the 1980s and adopted national education goals with a commitment to ensuring that all children would be ready for school. This created a demand for research, specific attention to desired outcomes, and greater attention at the state level to early childhood education. Not long after, governors who led the Education Commission of the States and the National Governors Association adopted early education as a policy priority. Besides the moral imperative, economics was another factor that pushed political leaders to endorse early childhood education. Several leading economists on the right as well as the left, politically, concluded that investing in early childhood education would yield benefits far more significant than other education reforms. High-quality preschool programs, the economists argue, could bring from $4 to $10 in future benefits for every dollar invested, largely because children with strong supports early in life do better in school and are more likely to be gainfully employed later. Despite research evidence and strong advocacy, early childhood education has languished in recent years. Investments in young children at the federal level decreased during the last Bush Administration, and while more and more states have added three- and four-year-olds to their preschool agenda, funding programs at a level that can provide high quality, not just quantity, has proven to be a real struggle. The Obama Administration pledges to make quality a priority, while it also expands Head Start and other early childhood programs, for a total of $10 billion more in this area. At the time of this writing, early childhood education is part of the economic stimulus plan, but that could mean more of a jobs program than a high-quality addition to the education system. A quick infusion of money into early childhood education is welcome, but to be true to its pledges for real change, the Administration needs to seize the moment with an aha approach that would reverberate throughout the education reform community. Early childhood education could be the catalyst to take education reforms into new, more exciting areas--if the investments are based on sound practices and bold ideas. The Obama plan could insist on high quality. We know what young children need in institutional settings--small classes, qualified teachers, and attention to the array of needs of growing children, including social behavior as well as cognitive learning. The controversy of the last few years over using standardized accountability measures to judge the quality of early childhood education programs needs to be set aside. …

Middle and High Schoolers Get Hands-on STEM Experiences

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been hot stuff in 2008. Pick up a magazine or newspaper, and STEM is there. STEM subjects relate to invention, industry, and commerce. They relate to chemistry and electricity and health. Far greater numbers of kids need to know more and be able to understand why things work the way they do. One could safely predict that state economies rise and fall in direct proportion to the knowledge and skills of each state's graduates. Recognizing that rote learning in the STEM fields is far from sufficient, state leaders are beginning to provide support for students to engage in real-life mentoring and intern programs or to get engaging, challenging, hands-on science and math experiences in afterschool programs. Kyle Zinth, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States, recently collected and synthesized state policies related to STEM instruction (www.ecs.org/hsdb-stem). In addition to mining state laws for state policies that recruit math and science teachers, target greater participation by low-income or minority students, etc., he looked for and documented provisions that support real-life and hands-on experiences. Real-Life Experiences Engaging in mentoring and intern programs gives students opportunities to see and understand what STEM careers really look like. Internship and mentoring programs can foster student interest in STEM fields and provide valuable hands-on experience. Students are exposed to STEM-related opportunities within their community, showing them that opportunities exist nearby, possibly combating brain drain. Zinth found that eight states support mentoring or internships for high school students in the STEM fields. A pilot program in Connecticut, for example, provides grants to establish self-perpetuating programs offering job-shadowing and internships in science, mathematics, or technology intensive businesses. Kentucky's Science and Technology Council is responsible for enhancing students' interest in STEM subjects through industry internships, mentorship, and career exploration. Florida's career academies--which include schools focused on STEM and information technology--must include partnerships that provide for internships and externships. Washington's director for mathematics, science, and technology is responsible for creating and promoting student internships and apprenticeships. Outside the School Day According to Zinth, 12 states support extended learning opportunities in STEM subjects. For example, Missouri's Afterschool METS Grant Program provides competitive grants to expand quality afterschool programs that focus on STEM subjects (referred to in Missouri as METS subjects) or health. As of 2008, about $500,000 has been allocated for each grant program. Competition Engages Students, Reinforces Learning In addition, a handful of states have begun to fiscally support participation in math- and science-related competitions. Why is this important? Not only do competitions help increase student interest, but providing financial support to students representing a state encourages students who otherwise might not have been able to afford it. Districts and schools have traditionally footed the bill for competitions. Music contests, athletic events, and such head-to-heads as Odyssey of the Mind are the most common--but funding often hinges on parent support, volunteers, or student activity funding that comes out of per-pupil operating revenues. Other longstanding competitive programs serve career and technical students. In 2007, the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education looked at the impact of Career and Technical Student Organizations, or CTSOs (Looking Inside the Black Box: The Value Added by Career and Technical Student Organizations to Students' High School Experience, June 2007). …

Budgeting on Shifting Sand

THE headlines are daunting. Plunging home values, skyrocketing fuel costs, declining state revenues, and a multitude of other budget worries add up to nightmares for state budget officials and school business directors. Even the most conservative observers will admit that budget cuts in most districts go beyond trimming fat and are cutting deep into the meat. According to Mike Griffith, senior school finance analyst for the Education Commission of the States, each economic slowdown affects different states in different ways. For example, the impact of the current slowdown is less severe in states that rely on mineral extraction taxes or in states with a large agricultural base. In addition, those states that did not experience the boom in the housing market are not being affected as much by the current bust. But states that rely on businesses other than mineral extraction or agriculture--especially those that rely on manufacturing--are already feeling the pinch of the economic downturn. Governors and state legislatures have used a variety of means to try to stave off the impact on districts of reductions in current and future revenues, but looking for efficiencies appears to be one of the more common approaches. Proactive policies can be implemented prior to bad economic times, and reactive policies can be used in response to a downturn. Purchasing cooperatives. A study conducted on behalf of the Leadership for Education Achievement in Delaware Committee found that, if school districts pooled their purchasing power, they could reduce their costs by between 8% and 14%. In 2006 the Rhode Island legislature passed P.L. 298. This legislation directed the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, working with the Department of Administration, to establish a statewide purchasing system for products and services pertaining to public schools. These include telecommunications, wireless services, general insurance products and services, and school transportation for children with special needs. Shared services. While shared services might include purchasing, this type of collaboration can also include management and instruction. Iowa was one of the first states to offer incentives for districts to share services, and the legislature continues to tweak laws to encourage such collaboration. S.F. 447, passed one year ago, reinstated earlier incentives for reorganization and whole-grade sharing, created operational sharing incentives, and mandated a statewide study of efficiencies and sharing. S.F. 447 provides additional funding for districts that share one or more operational functions for at least 20% of the school year in such areas as management, business, human resources, transportation, or operation and maintenance. The additional funding is available to a district for a maximum of five years during the period covering the budget years 2008-09 through 2012-13. Also passed one year ago, Indiana S.B. 526 was an omnibus bill that included provisions related to shared services. Article 42.5 of this bill authorizes school corporations (districts) to take specific actions to reduce noninstructional expenditures and allocate the resulting savings to student instruction and learning. Authorized actions include creating insurance pools with other school corporations, aggregating purchases of natural gas, and consolidating specified purchases. Such shared services can even include arrangements to provide instructional services and management. Educational service centers are required to report annually on the results of their efforts during the preceding school year to help school corporations pool resources. Last September, the Michigan legislature enacted H.B. 4592. This bill requires each intermediate school district to conduct a study of opportunities for its constituent districts to share services with other districts or other units of local government. Among the services that might be shared are transportation, human resources, purchasing, technology support, professional development, accounting, and event management. …

Can Those Tweens and Teens Read Yet?

AS students transition from the elementary grades into middle school and high school, it is taken for granted that they can read at least close to grade level. Insightful teachers, however, often find that to be far from true. Out of a class of 25, three students might not decode words well, five might have a problem with fluency, and another five might read aloud just fine but look up with deer-in-the-headlights eyes when asked to recap what they've read, because they don't know. Teachers know these things, but most don't know what to do about it. Most teachers who were trained to teach secondary English know how to teach such literature-related concepts as theme and character development, but they don't necessarily know how to teach kids to decode. As a high school English teacher who moved to a middle school to teach reading and language arts to fifth-and sixth-graders, I was that deer in the headlights when it came to helping kids at the lowest level learn to read. Over a year ago, I wrote about the need for states to address adolescent literacy. The National Governors Association and the Alliance for Excellent Education had just begun to push leaders' thinking on this issue. Since that time, however, state policies designed to ensure that teens and tweens read at grade level have not exactly been filling my in-basket. So to help gin up some interest across the legislatures, researchers at the Education Commission of the States added adolescent literacy as one of the measures to include in the ECS High School Policy Center database. Over the past year, researcher Melodye Bush scoured state policy. What follows is a summary of her findings. EFFORTS REFLECTIVE OF STATE LEADERSHIP State office or central coordination. The presence of a designated state office or coordinator can reflect a strong level of commitment and help ensure that a focus on adolescent reading and literacy is not pushed aside in favor of other priorities. The Just Read, Florida! office, for example, was legislatively created within the state department of education in 2006. In New York, the Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Instructional Technology works with the Office of Early Education and Reading Initiatives to support increased adolescent literacy achievement. The Ohio Reading Improvement Office is housed in the state department of education and facilitates communications within the government to ensure alignment across the state's literacy and teacher training activities. The office also offers professional development, provides an online adolescent literacy journal, and runs a grant competition to fund research-based literacy programs in low-performing secondary schools. In Rhode Island, the State Literacy Advisory Panel provides advice concerning literacy programs and efforts. In Virginia, two state-level staffers coordinate adolescent literacy for the state. In addition to creating Just Read, Florida!, the Florida legislature established the Florida Center for Reading Research, which disseminates information through the Florida Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network. Clear standards, expectations. Clear, rigorous standards can help staff members understand what students in grades 4-12 should know and be able to do. Challenging standards improve efficiency, generate challenging and cohesive curriculum, and become the basis for holding students, teachers, and schools accountable. Standards are the launching pad for redesigning curriculum, assessment, accountability, teacher education, professional development, and resource allocation. Yet only a dozen states have standards explicitly reflecting literacy expectations. Building momentum and monitoring progress. State efforts to raise K-3 reading skills can founder in later grades if effective teaching of reading is neglected in the middle and secondary grades. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly half of the undergraduates enrolled in remedial classes in 2000 took remedial writing, and 35% took remedial reading. …

P-16 Education: Where are We Going? Where Have We Been?

The education reform known as P-16 is intended to provide greater continuity to students' entire school career and entry into the work force. To introduce this special section, Ms. Chamberlin and Mr. Plucker provide a detailed overview of the reform's objectives, the mechanisms used to create P-16 systems, and the progress that specific states have made toward achieving the ideal of seamlessness. OVER THE past decade, a wave of education reform has swept the nation. Yet the general public remains largely unaware of it, even though the reforms are arguably among the most successful public policy initiatives of the past quarter century and have the potential to yield benefits for years to come. Charter schools, school choice, standards-based instruction, expansion of systematic assessment, heightened roles for states and the federal government in education--one can debate the merits of any of these reforms, but it is difficult to argue that the landscape of U.S. education has not undergone major change. One education reform that has the potential to leave its mark on education for many years is the P-16 initiative. The name refers to the range of grades included, beginning with preschool and running through the postsecondary undergraduate years. Though such efforts are most commonly called P-16, they are in some cases referred to as P-20 (or K-20) to demonstrate the importance of preparing a highly skilled work force in the years beyond undergraduate education. P-16 activities usually involve collaborations linking preschool education, K-12 education, and higher education, with major roles often played by state agencies, state legislatures, and businesses. P-16 systems are intended primarily to smooth transitions between the different levels of education and into the work force. To do so usually involves enhancing preparation for college through a rigorous high school curriculum, aligning high school graduation requirements with postsecondary admissions requirements, and strengthening teacher preparation programs and professional development for veteran instructors so that every classroom has a highly qualified teacher. (1) Other activities often associated with P-16 systems include the provision of high-quality preschool programs for all children, an expanded range of course offerings at the high school level, enhanced collaboration among teachers at all educational levels, high levels of parent and community involvement in schools, and smoother transitions between educational levels. In addition, new P-16 efforts include the creation and implementation of P-16 (or P- or K-20) data systems that have been designed to track student achievement from early childhood all the way into the work force. NATIONWIDE P-16 EFFORTS In a June 2006 report, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) identified 30 states with formal P-16 initiatives. (2) A handful of additional states, though not mentioned in the ECS report, have taken the initial steps toward creating P-16 alliances, organizations, or councils. For example, one of the most recent state-level efforts was begun in Massachusetts in the summer of 2006. The Massachusetts Advisory Committee on Education Policy was formed at the request of the state board of education and is a collaboration involving agencies of early childhood education, K-12 education, and higher education. Some states have had P-16 initiatives under way for a number of years and have already produced significant results. Florida's K-20 initiative began in 1994 and was written into legislation in 2003. It has resulted in the consolidation of K-12 and postsecondary education under the Florida Board of Education and led to the creation of one of the nation's first K-20 data systems. Oregon, which began its P-16 efforts in 1995 through the collaboration of K-12 and higher education, has worked to expand early learning opportunities and better ensure college readiness by aligning its high school completion standards with college-entry requirements through the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS). …

Quick Facts to Inform a Young Year

TOWARD the end of any year comes a prolific rush of products. In the education industry, this means a rash of new reports, whether end-of-the-year studies, deliverables for funders, or incremental reports that add to the knowledge base for predicting events in the new year. This year, three such items provide intriguing new knowledge. VIRTUAL HIGH SCHOOLS Did you know that 28 states have established statewide virtual high schools? Two researchers at the Education Commission of the States--Melodye Bush and Michael Colasanti--recently completed a database of these statewide programs by thoroughly combing through state statutes, session laws, state board rules and regulations, and documents from state departments of education. The program in New Mexico is a pilot, but the other 27 provide statewide access to a central resource for online coursework. The range of options is wide. Diploma-granting or supplemental. Most statewide virtual high schools do not actually grant diplomas. Only those in Arizona and North Dakota appear to do that. In most states, the local district remains the diploma-granting entity. However, Utah's virtual high school can issue a diploma to students who are home-schooled, have dropped out, are past graduation age, or are ineligible to graduate for other specific reasons. Focus areas. Statewide virtual high schools typically have a specific focus, such as core curriculum, accelerated courses, or credit recovery. Twenty-two state programs offer core curriculum. West Virginia offers non-core electives, and Virginia's virtual high school focuses on Advanced Placement (AP) courses. A federal grant allows the University of Iowa to run the Iowa Online AP Academy. Capping the number of courses. Five states set a cap on the number of credits a student may earn online in a specific period. For example, Georgia limits virtual course-taking to one semester course during the regular school year. Hawaii's limit is two classes per semester. Other states' limits typically range from three to six credits per year. Such limits allow more predictability with regard to the costs of virtual school programs and ensure that students take some courses in a traditional classroom setting, where they can benefit from interaction with peers and teachers. Online teachers. Virtual high schools require instructors to teach in a new kind of environment, and 22 states require that online instructors have specialized training. Georgia requires teachers to have a specific online teaching endorsement. Alabama requires elementary/secondary teachers to have training for teaching online but allows faculty members at postsecondary institutions to teach online without state certification. Twenty-five states require online teachers to meet the same requirements as classroom teachers. Oversight. Most states with virtual high schools require the administering agency to submit reports for evaluation annually or every two to three years. South Carolina's requirements are among the most specific. Each year the state board must report to the general assembly such information as the courses offered through the virtual school, number of districts and students participating, number of private and home-schooled students participating, student success rates, number of students who dropped a course and their reasons, expenditures, and number of students unable to enroll because of space limitations. TIME IN SCHOOL State policy makers are always looking to squeeze every ounce out of the school day. State policy usually establishes a minimum number of instructional days or hours (pupil/teacher contact days). However, fewer states explicitly address whether certain nonteaching activities count toward that minimum. Michael Colasanti and I dug into the details of such policies. In Massachusetts, the state board defines structured learning time as during which students are engaged in regularly scheduled instruction, learning activities, or learning assessments within the curriculum. …

Community College Mission: Re(S)ources Make a Difference

Community colleges are unique among higher education institutions in their potential access to local appropriations as well as state funding. A total of 26 states reported to the Education Commission of the States in 2001 that community colleges in their states received some share of local funding. Using data for 781 public community colleges, we explored the implications of resource dependency theory for mission differentiation between dual-funded and state-funded colleges. Significant differences were observed in their student bodies, programming, expenditures, and outcomes. These differences have implications for the increasing dependence on state funding for community colleges and the roles these institutions play.

Premature Arrival of the Future

The basics of are skills considered to be of higher level today. These skills include: evaluation and analysis skills; critical thinking; problem-solving strategies (including mathematical problem-solving); organization and reference skills; synthesis; application; creativity; decision making given incomplete information; and communications skills through variety of modes. --The Information Society: Are High School Graduates Ready? Education Commission of the States, 1982 IT SEEMS like long time ago, and in many ways it was. The year was 1982-25 years ago, two and half decades, lifetime for many of today's young teachers who were toddlers or infants when that list was made. My mentor, Chris Pipho, used to say that he suffered from premature arrival of the future. Well, the tomorrow in that 1982 publication is here. And yet the list might have been made just this morning. So does that mean, as the song puts it, that everything old is new again, or does it mean that it is even more important to get it right this time? The focus on the Information Society in 1982 parallels the focus on being globally competitive today. Being globally competitive is all about people. We need far larger number of graduates who know how to think, to solve problems, to discern fact from ideology, and to demonstrate all the other skills deemed important in 1982. So if that's the case, what are experts saying about what needs to be different in schools? And what are state leaders doing about it? Practitioners like Elizabeth Lodal, former principal of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, note that the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are successful when the subjects are required for all students, the curriculum is interdisciplinary, teachers and students work in collaborative teams, academic work is project-based, students experience hands-on problem solving involving real-world questions, and the school schedule devotes large blocks of time to learning and team planning. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CLASSROOMS? Richard Duschl of Rutgers University, who chaired the National Research Council committee that wrote the report Taking Science to School, makes several assertions. One is that children entering school already have substantial knowledge of the natural world. Young children, he contends, are not concrete and simplistic in their thinking. They can use wide range of reasoning processes that form the underpinnings of scientific thinking. Teaching, says Duschl, should not separate content from processes, skills, and practices. However, he does note some tensions. Argument is rare in science classrooms but central to science; teaching focuses on recall rather than model-based reasoning. Classroom norms (the teacher and textbook provide answers) are in tension with the practice of building scientific models from evidence. Curricula and standards tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep. Students, notes Duschl, should participate productively in scientific practices and discourse by constructing arguments; by talking, writing, and representing scientific ideas, data, evidence, information, models, and theories; by responding to criticism and considering alternatives; and by evaluating their own and others' claims of knowledge. In 2002, report from the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, by Anthony Carnevale and Donna Desrochers, The Missing Middle: Aligning Education and the Knowledge Economy, predicted that economic and demographic changes would increase the need to align curricula with work requirements and create stronger relationships between high schools and colleges and communities and employers. The authors argued that there must be stronger focus on the missing middle in education policy: the years between the completion of basic academic preparation and the completion of occupational or professional training. …

A Diversity of Voices for a Balanced Debate

Actions based solely on belief or ideology risk being actively or--perhaps worse--passively resisted by those who do not share the ideology. Adopting a stay the approach in the face of changing public opinion and even multistate legislation will eventually cause the public to simply tune out its leaders. In like fashion, even nagging mothers eventually get tuned out. Or, to draw on my own experience, when the cafeteria lady made 8-year-old me sit at the table until ate my spinach--because she believed it was good for me--I planned to sit there for days. In fact, did remain in my place well into the afternoon, at which time she huffed and puffed--but pointed me back to class. On the other hand, when a course of action is based solely on data, without taking account of the views of those who will implement it, it risks missing out on the human knowledge that might have improved it. How many times have you heard, I could have told them that would never work? No Child Left Behind is a perfect example. While consensus on the goals of NCLB is high, there is nothing approaching consensus on all the courses of action stemming from it. Informed decision making that is built on knowledge of how others see a problem can support powerful action that has a chance to succeed. Thus each year, for more than four decades, the Education Commission of the States has provided state policy leaders, experts, practitioners, national and state organizations, federal representatives, and business leaders with a unique opportunity for a balanced discussion of the critical issues facing American education. Regardless of political party or philosophy, participants share information, ideas, and lessons learned--all in a neutral setting. To help share more broadly the views of those who attended this gathering, I've gathered some quotes from invited speakers and discussants. I've also included notes from a subsequent opportunity for reasoned discussion, provided by the Gates Foundation, when it convened a similar mix of leaders in an effort to ensure that all kids will be ready for college. When am certain who was speaking, have identified speakers by name. When couldn't be sure of a speaker's name, I've identified the speaker by role or group only. On Rethinking the System * Perhaps a better way to think about the system of education is pre-K to gray.--Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius * We can't just focus on kids not falling behind. ... We also have to focus on kids getting ahead. We need to move from an expectation of competence to an expectation of excellence.--Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine * We're on an exponential pace for change, but we're still at a place in education where there is no focal event. Unlike the late 1950s, there is no Sputnik moment to drive change. It is a question of will. would argue for a new federalism. The current system (where the national government says you decide the standards but we're going to micromanage how you assess and intevene) needs to be flipped on its head, with the leading voice coming from states.--Scott Palmer, partner, Holland & Knight LLP On Parent Involvement * In China, when kids complain about a teacher, parents say, You're wrong. In the U.S., that doesn't happen. It would help if there were more parent support for teachers.--Gerardo Gonzales, dean of the School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington * As a teacher, can't teach if kids come to school scared or tired. We need to engage communities and parents.--State teacher of the year On Accelerating Student Achievement * There are five critical challenges: 1. Building consensus about which school conditions need to be changed; 2. Encouraging teachers to abandon ineffective routines and dysfunctional mental models; 3. …

Learning to Speak the World's Languages

THE increasing diversity of our workplaces, schools, and communities is changing the face of our society. Meanwhile, in order to confront the 21st-century challenges to our economy and national security, the U.S. education system must be strengthened to increase the foreign language skills and cultural awareness of our students. This according to the Committee for Economic Development (CED), an independent organization of business and education leaders, in its 2006 report Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security. The CED recommends that: 1) international content should be taught across the curriculum and at all levels of learning to expand American students' knowledge of other countries and cultures; 2) the training pipeline should be expanded at every level of education to address the paucity of Americans who are fluent in foreign languages, especially critical, less commonly taught languages; and 3) national leaders in politics, business, philanthropies, and the media should inform the public about the importance of improving education in foreign languages and international studies. To address all the implications of the CED report in my limited space here is impossible, so let me examine only how states can take up the matter of foreign language instruction. State leadership can make foreign language instruction a priority in a number of ways: by focusing on the importance of foreign language instruction, by addressing coursework requirements, by providing funding or other fiscal incentives, by recognizing excellent achievement, by helping to create a supply of high-quality teachers, and by allowing options for how districts and schools offer instruction in foreign languages. Focus on the importance of foreign language instruction. This year, the Utah legislature created a pilot program titled the Critical Languages Program. Utah S.B. 80 clearly states that the legislature recognizes the importance of skills in foreign languages in order for students to successfully compete in a global society. It also notes the academic, societal, and economic development benefits of learning languages--defined as Chinese, Arabic, Russian, Farsi, Hindi, and Korean. S.B. 80 requires the state board of education, in consultation with the Utah Education Network, to develop and implement courses of study in the critical languages. Courses may be taught over EDNET, the state's two-way interactive system for video and audio, or through the Electronic High School. A 2006 Minnesota bill, H.B. 4162, authorizes the commissioner of education to contract with the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota--or another Minnesota public entity--to develop an articulated K-12 Chinese curriculum for Minnesota schools. Following the curriculum development, the commissioner is to report to the education committees of both legislative houses on the applicability of the Chinese-language-acquisition project to other world languages and include information on curriculum, high-quality school programs, assessments, and best practices as they apply to world languages. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts board of education recently voted to grant a charter to the state's first foreign language immersion charter school. The Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School will serve students in grades K-8 and will teach them Mandarin Chinese, in addition to building their proficiency in English. Address coursework requirements. Several years ago, Jennifer Dounay, an Education Commission of the States (ECS) policy analyst, collected provisions related to foreign language in the elementary and middle schools. She found that many states have recommended or required that schools offer or students receive foreign language instruction prior to high school. For example, Kentucky's state department is required by law to establish a program that promotes the integration of the arts and foreign languages into the elementary school program. …

Making Assessments More Meaningful

TESTING is the primary means by which we know whether students have learned what it is we wanted them learn. However, many people question whether the benefits of testing are worth the costs. A growing chorus of both practitioners and researchers is now warning that we're spending far too much valuable instructional time on assessment, that the tests being given don't provide the right kind of information the teacher, and that the emphasis on testing in reading, math, and now science leaves other subjects--if not children--behind. The chorus also warns that students are not taking tests seriously. So what can states do ensure that the time and energy spent on state assessments are worthwhile, particularly for those high school students who like think tests don't matter? Over the past several months, Jennifer Dounay, policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States (ECS), has been collecting evidence of state policy and practice in the testing arena. Three approaches appear hold promise for addressing issues raised by practitioners and researchers: * To help teachers identify gaps in student skills and knowledge, some states are requiring all students take diagnostic tests. * To address narrowing of the curriculum and help students take learning seriously, some states are implementing end-of-course assessments. * To make testing more meaningful for students (and for schools, higher education institutions, and potential employers), some states are beginning include measures that are aligned with what colleges expect. REQUIRING DIAGNOSTIC TESTS The use of diagnostic tests is premised on the belief that students benefit when states provide a means of ensuring that student needs are identified early enough be addressed. The ECS research looked only for actions that demonstrate that a state is making a clear, deliberate attempt take diagnostic measurement of all high school students, through either a stand-alone test or an effort use state assessment scores for diagnostic purposes. Currently, seven states use assessments administered all students for diagnostic purposes. For example, Arkansas uses state-mandated criterion-referenced tests identify and develop individual academic improvement plans for students who fail demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing, and math. In Massachusetts, the state board is required develop comprehensive diagnostic assessments be administered in grade 10 identify academic achievement levels of all students in order inform teachers, parents, administrators, and the students themselves. Oklahoma's end-of-instruction tests are not solely diagnostic exams, but the results must be reported districts in a manner that yields detailed, diagnostic information for the purpose of guiding instruction and student remediation. Pennsylvania's state assessment isn't strictly a diagnostic exam either, but the state uses value-added longitudinal tracking of results provide diagnostic information about students' academic growth. Implementation of this program and several like it in other states is in progress. In South Carolina, schools are required use the PSAT or PLAN tests (preliminary versions of the SAT and ACT respectively), which are administered 10th-graders, diagnostic tools provide academic assistance students whose scores reflect the need for such assistance. In addition, the South Carolina Education and Economic Development Act (H.B. 3155) requires the state board, by July 2007, outline criteria--including diagnostic assessments--for districts use in identifying students at risk of dropping out or not being adequately prepared for the next grade level. However, it is not clear at this time whether all students will be required take diagnostic assessments or just those identified as being at risk. While the state of Washington does not have assessments that are explicitly diagnostic, the assessment system is be designed so that the results can be used by educators as tools evaluate instructional practices and to initiate appropriate educational support for students who have not mastered the essential academic learning requirements at the appropriate periods in the student's educational development. …

How Well Has NCLB Worked? How Do We Get the Revisions We Want?

LOOK south from the corner of the Capitol Hilton in Washington, D.C., and the front door of the White House is squarely in the center of your view. Look north, and you can see a corner of the National Education Association building on 16th Street. Around the corner is the entrance to the offices of the Washington Post. Glance from side to side, and you see a stretch of the infamous K Street, the land of the lobbyists. One block west and one south is a stop for the Blue Line Metro, which can take you directly to the middle of the House of Representatives buildings. This hotel has always been a strategic and sometimes history-making place. In one of its ballrooms, the late Terry Sanford, then governor of and later senator from North Carolina, announced an unusual compact for education: the agreement to form the Education Commission of the States. Before other venues closer to the Capitol were built, this was a favorite site for the conferences of education groups, the release of major reports, and no doubt some deal making in the lobby bar. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] It was a fitting place for Phi Delta Kappa International to hold its 2006 Summit on Public Education, the formal culmination of a year of events celebrating the centennial of PDK, the professional association in education. In this cradle of policy making, politics, and media, PDK appropriately turned its attention to one of the most extraordinary happenings in education policy of the last century--the No Child Left Behind Act. The law was conceived by the White House and passed by Congress on a nonpartisan basis. Since it first took effect in 2002, it has been the focus of intense lobbying by many groups wanting to change it. Now, after more than four years, it stands accused of not doing very much, very fast, for the children attending schools just a few blocks from the hotel, the kind of struggling and often neglected students the law is intended to help the most. This juxtaposition of good intentions and stark realities characterized much of the discussion, both formal and informal, at the Summit. A panel of national policy experts, prodded and kept on track by questions from John Merrow, education correspondent for PBS' NewsHour, opened the conversations with a mixture of praise, some misgivings, and a few suggestions for changes in a law that is not going to go away. The panelists were a lot nicer than many in the audience wanted them to be. In breakout sessions focused on what the panelists had said, PDK members and others voiced frustration at how the law is playing out in their classrooms, school districts, and higher education institutions. The panelists, for example, counted the greater attention paid to children in special education as a plus in the law. That's true, participants said in the small-group discussions, but the law's accountability provisions work against the best interests of these children. Panel member Sandy Kress, an architect of the legislation for President Bush and former school board president in Dallas, said passionately that the law allows no excuses for the achievement gap. I think part of what gets No Child Left Behind into trouble is, it means [what it says]. There are teeth to it, more teeth to it than anywhere in any previous act of legislation. Those in the small-group discussions agreed but argued that the accountability provisions are in need of a good cleaning. The panelists welcomed the fact that ensuring good teachers for classrooms in high-poverty schools was on the table. But even the panelists did not equate the law's definition of highly qualified with real competence, and Summit participants, many of them teachers, decried the law's effect on excellent teachers who had been made to feel that they are failures because of NCLB's statistical definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP). The panelists and Summit participants certainly agreed that NCLB has provoked a national discussion about public education and has made public the significant achievement gap among the nation's students. …